Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's Trademark Exploit

blog.giovanh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#101

Post by nulbyte »

Nextgrid wrote: post #99
joosters wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'I described them as knockoff Air Pods' If Facebook didn't immediately block sales of items self-described as knockoff , they'd be (rightly) criticised for allowing the sale of counterfeit goods

Is it a counterfeit if it's advertised as such? The harm of counterfeits is only when they're being passed off as the real thing. If the buyer is aware that it's counterfeit what's the issue?

Are you asking if it's counterfeit if you say it's counterfeit? If it weren't, and you said it was, wouldn't you be lying?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#102

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30

The author appears to accidentally make the assumption that in order for it to be a counterfeit part, it must be 100% counterfeit. CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfei…

Even more so than this, counterfeit goods can be made in the same factories as the real deal. One of the problems that luxury brands have is that contract manufacturers will sometimes either divert items with minor quality-control failures, or overproduce and sell into grey-market channels.

Is there a difference between a factory that overproduces some fancy sneakers and resells them through unauthorized channels (which is a generally accepted example of counterfeiting) and this case? I'm sure there is, but it's a difference of degree rather than a bright-line issue.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#103

Post by wh0knows »

efitz wrote: post #29

I hate IP in its current forms yet I have trouble getting particularly outraged by this article. If we have laws protecting IP, why is it wrong to enforce them? Why is it wrong to train LE to recognize counterfeits? Granted the article did discuss some shady stuff like CBP seizing stuff and auctioning it off; I think that civil forfeiture and other such seizures are unconstitutional takings but the Supreme Court does…

I think it’s massively problematic that a few select mega corporations with deep pockets get to enforce what products are allowed to be brought into the US with no due process. CBP should train to learn what products to seize, but that training shouldn’t be taught by a self-interested corporation. It increases the barrier to entry of new competitors as you must bribe the CBP to have your trademarks enforced, and the CBP ends up with an unfair focus on one company’s products.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#104

Post by wh0knows »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30

The author appears to accidentally make the assumption that in order for it to be a counterfeit part, it must be 100% counterfeit. CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfei…

This is a nonsensical argument, the CBP doesn’t know if they will be sold illegally, the same way they don’t know that a company importing corn syrup AND honey is actually going to mix them and sell a counterfeit product. A bottle of corn syrup and a bottle of honey are both legal products, a third-party screen with a hidden non-advertised genuine component is also legal, it’s only afterwards that an illegal product could be made.

It’s impossible for the CBP to know if illegal activity will occur, but you are advocating seizure without due process based on the possibility of a crime.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#105

Post by Dah00n »

etchalon wrote: post #58
CivBase wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I assemble a computer for someone, do I have to scratch the logos off everything? Is it reasonable to call the machine "counterfiet" because the CPU says "Intel" on the heat spreader? Or because one of the memory chips says "Samsung"? Most other manufacturers produce electronics with components from a wide variety of sources, bearing many brand names. What makes Apple components special?

Apple components aren't found in other products, only their own products. So if a product contains something with Apple logo, and it's not an actual Apple product, the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher, though obviously not absolute in the rare case of component re-use - which is 100% legal. It would be impossible to tell if a computer was counterfeit just because it included something with a Samsung lo…

>the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher

So, "guilty until proven innocent" is the way they look at anything made by Apple and "innocent until proven guilty" otherwise? Seems… fishy at a minimum. Corrupt more likely.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#106

Post by marcus0x62 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30

The author appears to accidentally make the assumption that in order for it to be a counterfeit part, it must be 100% counterfeit. CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfei…

For one thing, your examples involve amalgamation in a way that is simply not applicable to computer parts with removable cables. Those have always been understood to be separate parts. If I was selling a computer with an Intel CPU, but used a third-party cooler, or a third-party accessory cable, nobody would claim I was selling a "counterfeit" device.

> How does CBP know you aren't going to sell them as genuine parts?

You can come up with a venal explanation for any item sold in commerce or any human behavior. If we enforced import and intellectual property law based on what people might do, nobody could do anything.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#107

Post by SillyUsername »

This is why I buy neither Apple nor Nintendo parts brand new wherever I can. I'd rather pay the last owner than have it go into the coffers of increasingly evil corporations.

They may be right in some cases, i.e. genuine fraud, but not when abusing law to help maintain a near monopoly.

Microsoft got done for maintaining a monopoly and browser walled garden at a time when it was the biggest company in the world.

What has changed with Apple?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#108

Post by mattpavelle »

Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated?

If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers.

Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them.

If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part that “fell off a truck” or didn’t pass QA and should have been recycled or something…

If I legitimately paid a manufacturer for a compatible part to be made, I’d expect no logo on it

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#109

Post by CivBase »

mattpavelle wrote: post #108

Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers. Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them.…

> Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated?

No. The products in question were assembled using a combination of standard hardware components and genuine OEM parts salvaged from broken Apple devices.

Since Apple goes to great lengths to prevent third parties from accessing components used in Apple devices, salvaging OEM parts from busted machines is often the only legitimate way to produce replacement parts that are compatible with Apple products.

> If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part

None of the products in the examples from this article were branded with Apple logos or advertised as being genuine Apple products. Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices.

The Apple brand was never used to identify anything that wasn't a genuine, OEM component - ergo not counterfeit.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#110

Post by mint2 »

SillyUsername wrote: post #107

This is why I buy neither Apple nor Nintendo parts brand new wherever I can. I'd rather pay the last owner than have it go into the coffers of increasingly evil corporations. They may be right in some cases, i.e. genuine fraud, but not when abusing law to help maintain a near monopoly. Microsoft got done for maintaining a monopoly and browser walled garden at a time when it was the biggest company in the world. What…

One reason some people like buying Apple products new is they have a reasonable resale value. So actually buying used still helps Apple by maintaining the resale market.
Post reply on HN